Hur blir man alpha?

[Evilvalle]

What certainly differs between human and animal behaviour?

The only act of behaviour that certainly and undoubtedly differs between the human and the animals is the ability of an intentional suicide. All known cases of suicide among animals (for example, mass suicide of lemmigs during migrations) are not intentional. This became possible because of lowered primativity of a human, that is, his higher ability to act in contradiction with his instincts.


All other acts of behaviour that are ascribed only to the human, such as abstract thinking(!) are, in fact, observed to certain extent with other animals, too. In that sense, the differences between a human and animal are quantitative, not qualitative. Except of human, abstract thinking is observed with shimpanze apes (which is natural), but not only with mammals; sparks of it are also observed with birds (especially crows and ravens).

[Evilvalle]

What are the characteristic of a High Rank, Low Rank, High primativenes and Low primativenes human?

High Rank:
High self-esteem, tendency to estimate the others lowly
Belief in his own unfalliability, absence of doubt
Resolute care for his own comfort, health and safety
Optimism, confidence in the next day
Bias to make quick decisions without long pondering
Ability to act despite opinions and problems of the rest
Non-reflexivity
High threshold of perceiving his own fault
Painful response to criticism, troubles with self-criticism
Determination, enterprise, initiative
Great career, social and possession ambitions
Organizing skills
Openness, boldness, extrovertcy
Persistency, intolerancy, egoism
For males - sexual success, for females - sexual domination

Low Rank:
Low self-esteem, tendency to form the inferiority complex
Ability to get along with uncomfortable and unsafe situation
Bias to pessimism and depressions; despondency in tomorrow
Unsureness; long ruminations before making a decision
Dependency on opinion of others, fear to hurt or offend anyone, reflexivity
Low threshold of guilt-perception (sense of guilt appears at a slightest hint)
Readiness to be satisfied with existing situation, conformism
Absence of great career and possession ambitions
Low organizing skills
Altruism, tendency to feel sorry for anything, self-abandonement
Bias to "worship" authorities, believe them; religiousness
Closedness, introversy
Timidity, pliability
For males - sexual unsuccessfulness, for females - sexual submissiveness


High primativeness:
Tendency to grovel before the authorities, believe them.
Religiousness, superstitiousness
Attention to hierarchical subordination
Suggestibility, including auto-suggestibility, hypochondria
Temptation irresistibility, weak willpower (*), emotional childishness
Irrational actions
Collectivism, communicativeness, extroversy
Emotional lability (hot tempered or whining), tendency to hystery
Most qualitative evaluations are binary, that is, "brilliant/disgusting", but not "so-so".
Impulsiveness (bias to act according to the mood)
Excessive care about one's comfort, health and safety
Explicit career, social and possession ambitions
Tendency to make decisions reckoning to meet a typical situation
Conspicuous, cares for external attributes of prosperity and prestige
For men - excessive tendency to promiscuity, for women - tendency to fall in love with men she better should not
Excessive egocentrism

Low primativeness:
Individuals possess the above qualities but in a rather weakened form.


What is the main error committed by men while courting women?

One should not neglect his self-dignity out of desire to serve and to please. Self-humiliation is absolutely unacceptable! As well as any action lowering one's visual self-esteem.

One should not be afraid of a woman! Perceiving a woman as a rigorous boss is almost a warranty of failure.

One should not show hunger for female attention. The most attractive men are the "satisfied" ones - "to him who has much, there will be given more, from him who has nothing - the least will be taken.". It's not desirable to express this satisfaction verbally (especially - to lie about the subject - discovery of such a lie would be a disaster!), it should be expressed indirectly in gestures, intonations and actions. But one should distinguish between "satisfaction" and "lack of appetite" - "appetite" should be present.

Gifts should seem as getting rid of surplus, but not as giving away one's last property. Self-sacrifice won't be appreciated, on the contrary - it will be a minus.


What are the tactical aims of male and female in search for sex?
The goal of a male search is to find women willing to intercourse with him; the goal of a woman is to find a man who she would WANT to intercourse with. A man agrees to have sex almost automatically, if it is physically feasible (certainly, we are talking about women capable of reproduction more or less); but far not every man is entitled to a woman's consent. Even with regard to feasibility and complete capability of a male to reproduce. In other words, a woman has more difficulty to convince herself to intercourse with a randomly taken man (and those difficulties can be a reason of serious inner torments!), and a regular man (not HR) has only difficulty to convince the woman to intercourse with him, while convincing himself is not needed at all.


Why are there so many unsatisfied women?
or most women, full sexual satisfaction is possible only with a relatively narrow group of men - let's call them "elitary reproductors". Usually, those are physically perfect HR men. The closer is the man to an ideal of such an "elitary reproductor", the more probable is satisfaction with him, even an orgasm because of light touch of a hand, or even thought. And, on the contrary, a man that is not close to such an ideal, usually has major difficulties to satisfy a randomly taken woman, no matter how perfect are the sexual techniques that he demonstrates, because the main erogeneous area of a woman is her brain (more precisely - the lymbic system). For the sex is not affording much delight, but lover do. But such "elitary reproductors" are very few, in general, not more than a quarter of all men, and that's why, despite of their bias to promisquity, large part of all women is depriven of their "attention", and, that is, of full sexual satisfaction.


Can one change one's own rank potential?
Yes. First of all one should pay attention to the fact that factual RP is a function of inborn RP and educating influence of the environment. In general, factual RP depends on the inborn RP to 2/3 rate, but this is true only if an average for all mankind is observed. In some particular cases this relation can be totally different; besides, this relation is formed as a result of spontaneous course of events - there aren't many people who try to change their own RP intentionally. And by intentional change of RP much better results may be achived.

Usually the problem is raising one's own RP. What should be done to achieve this? Developing a successful carreer, becoming famous, this is obvious. Besides, there are many schools and training courses that raise one's self-confidence. But there are many cheats in this field, so one should be very careful when applying for help to such specialists.

Nevertheless, I would like to stress that society needs LR members too, as much as the army needs soldiers and not only generals. Widely-spread practice of raising one's rank potential may be not only ineffective, but even harmful to the whole society, because it resembles to entering an arms race. The society should create such conditions, in which an individual would be rewarded according to his or her objective merits and accomplishments, and not only according to his or her natural boldness. That is conditions, in which one's rank potential would have as little influence on one's life and personal dignity as possible.


In your opinion, a woman wants only an HR man, or it is enough that his Rank Potential will be slightly higher than hers?
A woman usually doesn't want a LR man. Everything that higher than LR is possible. Besides, attractivity depends not discreetly, but smoothly on Rank Potential. The higher is the RP, the more attractive a man is, with all other conditions equal. But there are other tendencies that may influence this dependency. That's why insignificant differences in RP don't have to imply similar differences.


Why do young girls fall in love with elder men so often?
Because of a tremendous difference between visual RPs. Even the most LR elder man surely has more life experience than a young girl. And this is perceived as a high rank. Besides, in most cases of such affairs the man is a teacher or a boss of the girl, which increases the effect even more.


What is the reason of such a strong love of women to virtual romances?
As we know, the main goal of woman's sexual search is maximization of the number of admirers. Admirers, but not sexual partners. The more admirers a woman has, the more her instinct of being demanded is satisfied. A virtual romance gives a very convenient possibility to reach this goal: there are no obligations, everything is under control, and a man is present. Perhaps even more than one. Of course, the instinct requires sex, too, but if there are any admirers, sexual contact depends only on the woman's will - that's why there is no need to be in a hurry about it. Virtual romances don't help too much in creating a family, they only satisfy the instinctive need of collecting admirers. And a modern family, as it was mentioned many times before, is not conditioned in our instincts.


I know a few girls for whom man's intelligence is a turn-on. Isn't intelligence important for the instincts?
Intelligence is a turn-on (not for everyone!) only if combined with other qualities. An intelligent HR male is more attractive than a non-intelligent HR male, with the same rank potential. This is right, and this was the very cause for selection by intelligence criterion among our ancient progenitors. At the same time, LR intellectuals are, in general, less attractive than HR ignorants.


I understand who are HR males, but why are they preferred for copulation?
Because rank potential is a general expression of health, energy and genetic prospects of a given male. Instead of analyzing the numerous separate advantages and disadvantages of a given male, it is much easier to look at his rank in the hierarchy. Weak and sickly male hardly can reach the top of the hierarchy. Besides, RP enables to employ not only the opinion of a given female, but also the opinion of other members of the group while evaluating the prospects of a given male. HR species is one whose high rank is recognized by all or almost all members of the group. Observing this recognition and relying on it, the female concludes about good prospects of such male.


Why do you assume that pop-stars are HR? They don't necessarily have high conflictability and self-confidence

RP of a pop-star is more visual than real. That is, they look like HR, because they are surrounded by crowd of admirers, and in this way they create quasi-hierarchy, where a pop-star occupies the highest position. And the rest can rely on the opinion of those admirers without criticizing, and thus recognize the pop-star as HR, too.


You talked about jealousy above. Explain more, that the difference between reaction to unfaithfulness from HR to LR man.

Talking about instinctively-caused actions only, we can assert than any man in such situation wants to return his monopoly to possession of the woman. If not the one, then the other. But if we tell about legible expressed LR, that leaving to other woman for him is improbable, for she just not present as rule. Instead he begins to persuade and self-accuse, asking pardones, and so forth. That is, LR will aspire to return the woman by demonstration himself as good, kind and not terrible one. LR will leave his unfaithful woman ("to nobody and nowhere" as a rule) only if this unfaithfulness was expressed as particularly humiliating to him form, for example, after numerous pardons of former unfaithfulnesses.

On the contrary HR by virtue he is being demanded high, has an capability to really leave this woman (for she has lost control), and come to another, where he would felt himself boundless master. And this occasion realizing quite often, for the fact of unfaithfulness is a convenient ground for leaving, and realization of the instinct of sexual expansion. However, as I told above, sensation of jealousy for HR men are similar to sensations of a defeat in a hierarchical duel, meanwhile the defeating for strongly expressed HR is extremely disliked! Therefore, before refusing this woman, HR would want TO WIN her! Until she will not be entirely in his authority - he will treat her, applying energy and push, which naturally inherent him. In this case his reaction would basically include aggression both to woman, and to competitors for her; less often - recurrence of the strengthened course of carings, with elements of aggression as well. And then, when relations looks settled - he just leave...
The pure leaving "to another" on the fact of unitary unfaithfulness is possible for MR, there is demanded by women enough, but anxious hierarchically unsufficiently, for to attempt to take a revenge for a defeat in a hierarchical duel.


Why the women so like sense of humour at the men?

So-called "sense of humour" is one of the important attributes of high-rankness. Arising out of rank relations by all animals is more or less ritualized. Between the humans this ritual as a rule begins from "verbal duel", when the initiator of rank duel in the quasi-fiction, "comic" form hints to the contender about the superiority, and accordingly - about him needless. Further, at canonical development of ritual follows the exchange of witticisms which can be over with a bloodless victory of the initiator, or, on the contrary, confirmation existing ranks of the parties. But if result of verbal duel does not satisfy one of the parties, ritual developing relations can proceed in physical (in the most various forms), but it already comes out of frameworks of our question.

Thus is necessary to notice, that under common concept "sense of humour" really joined three much various parties of character. With one party is causticity, "witticism of tongue", readiness and skill to provocate verbal conflict, that, being a kind of conflicting initiativeness, of sure is attribute of high-rankingness. From other side an ability to make light of attempt to impose the conflict from the outside, to parry it; that is variant of conflicting stability, thus attribute high-rankingness as well. I shall remind by the way, that the conflicting initiativeness is not always combined with conflicting stability. The man can be witticism of tongue, but painfully and inadequately to react to jokes inverted to him. Well and with the third party - sense of humour, gaiety - characterize optimist, successful man, that too indirectly signs about his vital succes, and is visual attribute high rankingness.

[superduperadmin]

Hur man blir alfa?

Genom att vara alfa.

CR-Petter <3

[Ragnarök]

Där satt dom ja, fan dom ska läsas igen, saknat dom

[Nystart]

Well, okey, intressant.

Men de du drar upp som exempel får väl ändå omgivningen "reaktiv" på dem vilket ger dem perceptionen av att de har högt värde, som en bieffekt av den sociala responsen? Kan du vara alfa eller icke-needy om folk ignorerar dig konstant?

Aja, oavsett vilket så är jag ganska säker att det jag skrev applicerar sig generellt iaf. Vi uppmuntras att upprepa beteenden som vi får social bekräftelse för, som de flockdjur vi är. Sen finns det väl en skala kring hur mkt man behöver andras vs. sin egen bekräftelse och där det är bättre att luta mot att vända sig till sin egen snarare än andras.

Agree speciellt om det fetstilta.

Är mer än att bara vara relaxed och careless för att vara "alfa". Vissa är det, andra inte. Något man föds till mer eller mindre; vissa kan bara aldrig vara "alfa" imo (ok alla kan väl efter SI o så lång träning, men inom rimligt kort tid)

[Fuckzoned]

+1 för chipsmongo. Ett oerhört roligt ord.

Eller hur, tydligare bild får man jobba för ^^